Epidemic Protection Zones: Centred on Cases or Based on Connectivity?

Abstract

When an exotic infectious disease invades a susceptible environment, protection zones are enforced. Historically, such zones have been shaped as circles of equal radius (ER), centred on the location of infected premises. Because the ER policy seems to assume that epidemic dissemination is driven by a similar number of secondary cases generated per primary case, it does not consider whether local features, such as connectivity, influence epidemic dispersal. Here we explored the efficacy of ER protection zones. By generating a geographically explicit scenario that mimicked an actual epidemic, we created protection zones of different geometry, comparing the cost-benefit estimates of ER protection zones to a set of alternatives, which considered a pre-existing connecting network (CN) - the road network. The hypothesis of similar number of cases per ER circle was not substantiated: the number of units at risk per circle differed up to four times among ER circles. Findings also showed that even a small area (of <115 km(2) ) revealed network properties. Because the CN policy required 20% less area to be protected than the ER policy, and the CN-based protection zone included a 23.8% greater density of units at risk/km(2) than the ER-based alternative, findings supported the view that protection zones are likely to be less costly and more effective if they consider connecting structures, such as road, railroad and/or river networks. The analysis of local geographical factors (contacts, vectors and connectivity) may optimize the efficacy of control measures against epidemics.